Sunday, March 25, 2007 | 7:14 a.m.
The silence has been deafening.
On Friday the U.S. House of Representatives passed - barely - a bill to fund the war in Iraq and, in doing so, set a deadline 18 months out for U.S. troops to leave that country. It was a direct response to two things that have occurred in our country.
First, the November 2006 elections in which the American public made known its clear dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, the way it was being prosecuted and the options available to the United States and our allies in the region. And, second, the stubborn refusal of President Bush to change course in Iraq despite the message sent loud and clear by the voters.
Here's some reality. There is little chance that the House bill will make it through the U.S. Senate in a recognizable form. It may not ever come to a vote. But, if it does, Bush has promised to veto it. That, in itself, would cause a major problem since the generals have all stated that the appropriations need to be approved sometime in April in order to assure our troops the funds necessary to continue, as safely as possible, their mission in Iraq. A veto could cause a standoff and who knows what would happen then - other than to jeopardize our men and women in uniform.
The vote was close in the House, reflecting how divided the politicians are but, not necessarily, how divided this country is. It is, however, indicative of the disconnect between those of us in the rest of the country and those who are supposed to lead in Washington, D.C.
Many years ago, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, himself a rather stubborn man who chose to listen to those with whom he agreed - although in Israel that is close to an impossibility since everyone has an opinion - was meeting with my father and others on a very important issue having to do with the U.S.-Israeli relationship. The exchange became a bit heated and resulted in my father raising his voice to the point where he was actually yelling at the prime minister.
Begin said, "Hank, why are you yelling?" To which my father answered, "Because you won't listen."
I was reminded of that story Friday morning while listening to the debate on the House floor that preceded the vote. One young congressman caught my attention. His name is Patrick Murphy, a Democrat from Buck s County, P a. That's not the important part.
Murphy rose from private to captain in the 82nd Airborne before he left the service not too long ago. And he has been watching members of his company, men he served with, come home in body bags with no real end in sight. He spoke about the motto most service people refer to, which is, "Lead, follow or get out of the way," and he said he was voting for the appropriations bill because his commander in chief had failed to lead and wouldn't get out of the way.
For the past four years Congress has been complicit in the president's failed war policy because it sat silently on its GOP-led hands while things spiraled out of control with no course correction in sight. No one questioned or was allowed to question - without being branded a traitor - the prosecution of the war in Iraq and the strategies that flowed down from the commander in chief's office.
At the same time, the president refused to bring the American public along or let us in on his strategy. We are at war, but the only people who are paying the price are the brave men and women of our armed forces who are doing all that their commanders demand of them and our grandchildren , who will have to carry the economic burden.
The rest of us were told to go shopping and empty out our liquids before we got on an airplane!
In short, the president has not led. Whatever else people may think of Bush, he has failed to lead a nation at war. Rather, he just led a nation into war.
So now it is time for someone else to try to lead. Someone else to try to extricate our country from an impossible situation. Someone else to try to change the course in Iraq from one of failure to one in which some kind of victory can be achieved.
The problem is that there is no one else. The president is commander in chief and he is in charge. The only thing Congress can responsibly do - and cutting off money while our troops are in battle is not responsible - is to pass the law that mandates bringing them home. A law that can always be changed if circumstances warrant.
This vote on Friday was not a vote to bring the troops home because reality and responsibility require a different response. It was, though, a vote representing the view of most Americans who want something better from this White House. Something smarter. Something saner.
The American people want and need to win the war on terrorism and will support that effort until that war is won. But they are smart enough to know that what we have in Iraq - for whatever it could have been - is now a botched, impossible mess from which there are no good places to go.
They want a change of course from a White House that refuses to listen. Friday's vote was the American people yelling at George Bush.
archive
